4.6 Article

beta-CATENIN is a positive prognostic marker for HPV-positive head and neck squamous cell carcinoma

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00432-023-04712-3

关键词

beta-Catenin; WnT/beta-Catenin pathway; HPV; Head and neck cancer; Immunohistochemistry

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study evaluated the prognostic relevance of the Wnt/beta-CATENIN pathway in patients with HPV-positive HNSCC. High CTNNB1 expression was linked to better overall survival, and high beta-CATENIN expression was significantly associated with a better overall survival as well. Thus, beta-CATENIN expression may serve as a marker for better survival outcomes in patients with HPV-positive HNSCC.
Purpose The evolutionary-conserved Wnt/beta-CATENIN (WBC) pathway has been implicated in the pathogenesis of different solid malignant tumors. We evaluated the prognostic relevance of beta-CATENIN, a pivotal mediator of WBC activation, in patients with human papillomavirus (HPV)-positive head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC). Methods We analyzed if patients with HPV-positive HNSCC from the The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA cohort, n = 41) can be stratified based on their CTNNB1 mRNA expression. Moreover, in a tissue microarray (TMA) of primary tumor sections from HPV-positive HNSCC patients treated in a tertiary academic center (in-house cohort, n = 31), we evaluated the prognostic relevance of beta-CATENIN expression on protein level. Results In silico mining of CTNNB1 expression in HPV-positive HNSCC revealed that high CTNNB1 expression was linked to better overall survival (OS, p = 0.062). Moreover, high beta-CATENIN expression was significantly associated with a better OS in our in-house cohort (p = 0.035). Conclusion Based on these findings, we postulate that beta-CATENIN expression could serve (potentially in conjunction with other WBC pathway members) as a marker for better survival outcomes in patients with HPV-positive HNSCC. However, it is evident that future studies on bigger cohorts are warranted.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据